The "Ring" Argument

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Winning rings is like a 3 legged stool. You gotta have these 3 legs to win a championship:

* Talent
* System/Coaching
* Injuries

If any one of those legs breaks, the stool falls. You do not get to pass Go, you do not get to collect $200... you do not get a championship.

It makes no sense to say one leg is more important than the other, because if any leg breaks, that stool won't bear weight.

***********************************

You can see examples of this in any season. Probably [I]every[/I] season.

2010 - Kendrick Perkins breaks his knee in the Finals, the Celtics lose.
Now it could be debated whether the Celtics were going to win that series, but did anyone think they were going to win without Perk?

2011 - the Heat have a monster so-called Big 3 lineup... but lose to Dallas's smoother system. Spoelstra, in my opinion, didn't have a system in place, and he wasn't a strong enough coach to keep the motivation level high enough to finish.

88-89 Bulls had a great lineup, but they didn't have Phil Jackson. System/coaching cost them against the Pistons. Doug Collins, in my opinion, couldn't control his team.... and in 90, PJ was there but it took a full year to get rampaging egos to run his system.

The '71 Lakers also had a monster, so-called Big 3 lineup, with Baylor, West, and Chamberlain.... But Baylor & West both missed the entire playoffs, drawing DNP - injury.... and lost to Kareem's Bucks.

90s Shaq-Penny Magic got destroyed by injuries.

*********************

All three factors are out of the control of any individual player, no matter how great he is.

Using rings as a measurement of individual greatness is absurd.[/QUOTE]


yes but as the superstar of the team you are responsible for the pulse of the team, more so then the coaches and "system"

the team is a direct reflection of you as the superstar more so then any of the "3 legs"....find a way to win even through injuries , non smoothnes of a sytem , and talent.

to the winner goes the spoils.....






duh.

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]Combination of Watching/following players career, casual fans vote,hardcore fans vote, basketball players peer vote, media vote.

[B][SIZE="4"]example:[/SIZE][/B] If you [B]watched[/B] Horry's career and his winning 7 championships then you would understand he was not as good as player (allaround) as NBA Superstars MJ, Magic , Bird Kobe etc.

casual fans, hard core fans , media etc. understand this.


example:2 If you followed Lebron's whole career you would understand he Quit on a 65 win team, something happened last year that is still unexplainable,he is maybe the greatest physical player ever but mentally has made some really weird decisions, and since winning is the ultimate goal he has never shown that he can win it all...everyone understands this and this is his weakness and that is why everyone harps him to fix it.

example:3 nearly everyone has followed Kobe's whole career, his peers call him the best , media call's him a top 5 - 7 alltime player, [B]he has won 5 Championships as the premiere player in the NBA.[/B]people say Rings> because it basically sums up everything (criteria I stated) all in one. (assuming you watch basketball and understand Horry/Kerr was not nearly the allaround player as NBA Superstars were)[/QUOTE]

You are missing the point. Horry might not be in Kobe's echelon. But it certainly helps Kobe to have guys like him around. Kobe's peak physical season was probably the one where he couldn't get his sorry team into the playoffs.

Kobe was no where NEAR the premiere player in the league during the first three titles. I'd probably argue that he wasn't near the premiere player during the last two either but thats immaterial.

[QUOTE=HurricaneKid]You are missing the point. Horry might not be in Kobe's echelon. But it certainly helps Kobe to have guys like him around. Kobe's peak physical season was probably the one where he couldn't get his sorry team into the playoffs.

Kobe was no where NEAR the premiere player in the league during the first three titles. I'd probably argue that he wasn't near the premiere player during the last two either but thats immaterial.[/QUOTE]


#1. Many great player play on great teams for many years and never win anything or never win at the level of expectations and some do win ...

but this arguement that "some players just have better coaching systems and teamates".....is just a silly attempt

Grant Hill played on many good/great teams and never won.
Penny hardaway played on many great teams and never won.
Everyone thought TMAC was going to win in HOuston with Ming.
Vince Carter and Kidd
AI and Anthony in Denver
Kevin Durant has been on a great team his whole career so far
Duncan came to SA and had great team since his Rookie year
Lebron had a great team since 2003' and has had allstar teamates his whole career
Dirk had great teams his whole career

this silly arguement that winning is all luck is dumb....it's the NBA...they are all great players and desparaty in talant is marginal at best.



#2. Kobe was already one of if not the best allaround player in 2001....and alot more popular then any other palyer except MJ.





deal wit it.

Some people get mad when people use the "Robert Horry 7 rings>>>" argument, and to be sure, that is a statement that is made w/o considering context (Horry was never the first option or even the second option on any of his championship teams, hell he was a bench player for most them). Still, it's understandable why people use it when people use "rings" as their only argument when comparing two players. If you're gonna say "player a>player b" and then use "rings" as your reasoning and give no other reasons, then you're not making much of an argument in the first place and should expect the Horry rebuttal IMO. And seriously, I don't need rings to tell me Kobe Bryant has had a better career than Allen Iverson or Tracy McGrady. Kobe in his prime is fairly equal to AI in terms of scoring volume-wise, but Kobe was a good deal more efficient and a superior defender as well. T-Mac was quite close to Kobe at one point in time, and was arguably equal or better than him for a brief period, but injuries quickly led to a decline whereas Kobe has continued to play at an elite level. Back to the rings, though: Robert Horry wasn't a star player, true, but why then, can't we say "John Havlicek>Kobe" because Havlicek had 8 rings? Was Havlicek a star player? Yes. Was Havlicek a first option type scorer? The stats would indicate it to be so. He scored 22 PPG for his playoff career, including championship runs where he averaged 23.6 PPG, 25.9 PPG, 25.4 PPG, and 27.1 PPG. People need to be more consistent with these kinds of arguments IMO. I don't think Havlicek is better than Kobe, rings or not, but I don't think Kobe is better than Larry Bird despite having more rings.

It's not that players get rings it's how they are won.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]5 confused me. you can't build a team around david robinson?[/QUOTE]

Robinson's biggest criticism was he was too nice and wasn't competitive enough, and it showed in the playoffs when he underperformed. How many players like that have led teams to championships? He only won once Duncan, a better player that didn't have the same issues, came to the Spurs.

Individual talent means nothing if you can't help your team win. Winning a championship is the greatest achievement in sports. Look at the top 10 NBA players of all time, what do they all have in common? Rings.

Lebron is the best player in the league? That's good, but what does he have to show for it?

wow... and i thought i was the only person in this forum who understands that rings are TEAM accomplishments...

well said and i agree... had many of these threads before exposing the ring argument...

I agree on evaluating a players career/talent/skill based on the impact he was able to give to his team... resulting in team success........ you have to also look at what he had to work with around him and the competition he was up against, thats very important! But i dont agree on evaluating a players career and so on based on simply RINGS......... this is not tennis!

a player can be a WINNER without ever winning a ring... how? By getting the best team record, getting to the ECF/Finals with [B]a scrub team[/B] who immediately have the worst record in the NBA when you leave them....... thats one example of being a WINNER making your teammates so much better........

When looking upon a players Championship rings... you want to look at what he did for that team..
was he the best player in that team?
was he the best player in the nba?
was he a sidekick? benchplayer? roleplayer? 6th man?
what did he had to work with around him, where they scrubs, where they stacked?

my point is... its about the CONTEXT/VALUE of that Championship Ring and not about the Number of RINGS....

[IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/if5y06.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]yes but as the superstar of the team you are responsible for the pulse of the team, more so then the coaches and "system"

the team is a direct reflection of you as the superstar more so then any of the "3 legs"....find a way to win even through injuries , non smoothnes of a sytem , and talent.

to the winner goes the spoils.....





duh.[/QUOTE]

**************

Totally wrong, sorry.

No team is a reflection of its superstar except in the NBA, which has largely abandoned great basketball teamwork in favor of individual glory.

Fans increase that anomaly because they seem to think the superstar is supposed to drag a bunch of scrubs along behind him, making him seem more heroic.

Couldn't disagree with a post more than yours, sorry.

[QUOTE=pauk]wow... and i thought i was the only person in this forum who understands that rings are TEAM accomplishments...

well said and i agree... had many of these threads before exposing the ring argument...

I agree on evaluating a players career/talent/skill based on the impact he was able to give to his team... resulting in team success........ you have to also look at what he had to work with around him and the competition he was up against, thats very important! But i dont agree on evaluating a players career and so on based on simply RINGS......... this is not tennis!

a player can be a WINNER without ever winning a ring... how? By getting the best team record, getting to the ECF/Finals with [B]a scrub team[/B] who immediately have the worst record in the NBA when you leave them....... thats one example of being a WINNER making your teammates so much better........

When looking upon a players Championship rings... you want to look at what he did for that team..
was he the best player in that team?
was he the best player in the nba?
was he a sidekick? benchplayer? roleplayer? 6th man?
what did he had to work with around him, where they scrubs, where they stacked?

my point is... its about the CONTEXT/VALUE of that Championship Ring and not about the Number of RINGS....[/QUOTE]

Lebron will most likely be a top 15-20 player of all-time even if he chokes a bunch of times like he has the past 2 years and never wins a title. Thats a testament to how great he is and everything else that he's accomplished. But that would be what separates him from the likes of Jordan, Magic, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.

[QUOTE=Figlo]EX:
Kobe is better than Lebron because he has 5 rings.
which in logic would be the same thing as saying:
[B]Derrick Fisher is better than Allen Iverson.[/B][/QUOTE]

No, that's not making a logical point at all.

You know what the roles of Fisher and Iverson were. Fisher was role player and Iverson was a superstar.

When people (the casual fans usually or the majority) says "Kobe 5 rings, LeBron 0 rings", they mean that Kobe was a star player winning those rings.

Kobe wasn't superstar level to me in 2000 (he was a rising star), but he did earn the ring in spurts of brilliance. Two quick examples would be Game 7 2000, vs. Portland, where he outplayed the leader and best player of that team in Shaq. Or in Game 4 2000 Finals vs. Pacers, he came up super clutch to win that game when Shaq fouled out, including the game winning put back.

Kobe in 2001 and 2002 was a superstar player (he wasn't the best player or the leader, but he was damn good player). He put up 29/7/6 on 47% in 2001 and only had one bad game in the finals, where the rest were pretty okay/good. He put up 27/6/5 on 43% in 2002 and had a much better finals appearance this time around.

However, people will point out that Kobe didn't win Finals MVP's as they were dominated by Shaq. Shaq was the leader and the clear best player for that 3 year run, not going to deny that. But you can't deny what impact Kobe brought in as the second option either.

The same way how Scottie Pippen's runs in the playoffs/finals were much more valuable to the Chicago Bulls than Steve Kerr

[QUOTE=Tenchi Ryu]Basketball is a team sport, which is true. But the thing about Basketball is that unlike any other team sport, the court and overall flow of the game can be effected by one person. One person can be making a huge impact on the game. Its usually these people who are brought up in the RING discussion in the first place, not the role-players or scrubs who did their intended part.

You would never hear Fisher > Iverson cause of rings, cause his impact wasn't a dominate force to GET the ring.

Compare to say a argument like Kobe > Iverson cause of rings, that's different since Kobe WAS one of the dominant forces mostly responsible for the ring. Teammates are important, but the more elite you are, the better you'll make your team, simple as that. Cleveland Lebron was a testament to that. T-Mac on the Rockets had a opportunity IMHO.[/QUOTE]

That was very well explained :applause: :cheers: :applause:

People arguing against this need to realize their player didn't have the fight or the guts to get their team over the top....as great a player as they may be.
Look at Lebron......nice 4th quarters in the finals......THAT is why he doesn't have a ring, dude froze up completely and was looking for help from the equally frozen Wade. Kobe would've finished those games.
Bottom line it's all about winning and only partial credit can go to a Fisher or Horry for their huge shots.

:facepalm

Things I'd say:

Horry should be a HOFer. Probably the best role player ever; STATS are not as important. If anything, that's the issue.

And with rings, it's like, how hard did a player have to play, did they play above their head? Like what happened with Dirk, that was amazing. Hakeem, that was amazing. Those rings were won by a team, but they had those guys leading. Or, even Lakers in 2000 with Shaq.

Then you take Allen Iverson getting to the Finals. John Stockton/Malone. GP/Kemp getting to the finals. Those are very close to rings. But if you get to the Finals and get swept (unless it was on some total bullshit like what happened to Shaq in 95) then maybe it isn't as good.

There are great players that never got a chance to win, and it shouldn't be held against them, but players who DID have a chance to win and failed... even if they had a tiny chance to win, that should be held against them.

Most intelligent people can tell who was balling and who wasn't. The rings, stats, awards... etc. That's bullshit. Kobe "umad" 5 rings, heh.

It's sad that in history the end result is always what will be remembered not how people got there.

-Smak